This is a texture pack I am working on called "LessNoize".
It is named this because none of the textures contain the noise coloration that only looks good from a distance used in the default textures. In the screenshots you may see not all textures are done (work in progress)
#I don't feel comfortable showing the terrain.png as it may result in people stealing the textures#
So...
Here are the screen shots
HALP ME!
::The reason I need opinions is to see what kind of crowd I will be getting. I am also worried this will be marked as a "Simple Pack" by some mine-crafters. What really defines a simple pack?
Yep, this is a simple pack. The textures are 'simplified'.
Regardless, I like the textures on the wool and ore blocks. Very neat! But some of the others look too much like more of what we've already seen-- try to put your own spin on them rather than just painting over all the noisy pixels.
To me, a simple pack focuses more on overwhelming color and shapes than it does detail. Diamond blocks may have pretty shiny parts and facets, but a simple pack will only focus on the fact that it's a blueish color that has a slightly reflective surface. Cobblestone may have shadows, highlights, texture, and a whole lot of different colors within it but a simple pack might only focus on the fact that it's got multiple circles/blocks and they're all shades of gray.
Some of your pieces look like they could be defined as simple (the bed stands out) but a lot of looks like regular Minecraft to me.
I'd say that your texture pack is trying to stay away from detail, but not be truly "simple". Just...not detailed (basically, it's what you want it to be). If that makes any sense. :blink.gif:
To me, a simple pack focuses more on overwhelming color and shapes than it does detail. Diamond blocks may have pretty shiny parts and facets, but a simple pack will only focus on the fact that it's a blueish color that has a slightly reflective surface. Cobblestone may have shadows, highlights, texture, and a whole lot of different colors within it but a simple pack might only focus on the fact that it's got multiple circles/blocks and they're all shades of gray.
Some of your pieces look like they could be defined as simple (the bed stands out) but a lot of looks like regular Minecraft to me.
I'd say that your texture pack is trying to stay away from detail, but not be truly "simple". Just...not detailed (basically, it's what you want it to be). If that makes any sense. :blink.gif:
I like that you see i'm trying to avoid the simple class. (as it is quiet low)
Im trying to get rid of the (what I view as ugly) noise, while preserving art and an actual texture.
EDIT: While keeping a 16x16
I like that you see i'm trying to avoid the simple class. (as it is quiet low)
Im trying to get rid of the (what I view as ugly) noise, while preserving art and an actual texture.
EDIT: While keeping a 16x16
Well that certainly is going to be a challenge. 16x16 leaves very little room for detail, so most detail does come out noisy. But I have seem some amazing 16x16 packs out there that aren't noisy at all. :smile.gif:
Good luck and a good start with what you have going!
I like that you see i'm trying to avoid the simple class. (as it is quiet low)
Im trying to get rid of the (what I view as ugly) noise, while preserving art and an actual texture.
EDIT: While keeping a 16x16
The trick: Shading. Simple packs (like most cartoons) rely on outlines and colors to define shapes. Whereas "complex" packs use shading to simulate depth on a 2D surface. The cobblestone on a simple pack might simply be some lines implying different blocks, but on a complex pack, the shapes are defined by shadows, lights and darks. I wish I had some examples to show you, but just compare packs like ShortStuf7's Clean Design Pack (arguably the best "simple" pack, because the author actually cares about color and consistency) to something like Painterly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say that there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." -Frank Zappa
Well that certainly is going to be a challenge. 16x16 leaves very little room for detail, so most detail does come out noisy. But I have seem some amazing 16x16 packs out there that aren't noisy at all. :smile.gif:
Good luck and a good start with what you have going!
#in effort to show you i'm not pathetic :biggrin.gif:#
I have made a texture pack. It was quite good then patches started to overwhelm me and I lost all heart to work on it.
Here it is (please note the download is dead and so is the topic)
*clears cobwebs*
Here it is! http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/178210-16x16-llamapack-updated-33111-beta-14/
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I make textures and stuff...
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is named this because none of the textures contain the noise coloration that only looks good from a distance used in the default textures. In the screenshots you may see not all textures are done (work in progress)
#I don't feel comfortable showing the terrain.png as it may result in people stealing the textures#
So...
HALP ME!
::The reason I need opinions is to see what kind of crowd I will be getting. I am also worried this will be marked as a "Simple Pack" by some mine-crafters. What really defines a simple pack?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffRegardless, I like the textures on the wool and ore blocks. Very neat! But some of the others look too much like more of what we've already seen-- try to put your own spin on them rather than just painting over all the noisy pixels.
Some of your pieces look like they could be defined as simple (the bed stands out) but a lot of looks like regular Minecraft to me.
I'd say that your texture pack is trying to stay away from detail, but not be truly "simple". Just...not detailed (basically, it's what you want it to be). If that makes any sense. :blink.gif:
I like that you see i'm trying to avoid the simple class. (as it is quiet low)
Im trying to get rid of the (what I view as ugly) noise, while preserving art and an actual texture.
EDIT: While keeping a 16x16
Well that certainly is going to be a challenge. 16x16 leaves very little room for detail, so most detail does come out noisy. But I have seem some amazing 16x16 packs out there that aren't noisy at all. :smile.gif:
Good luck and a good start with what you have going!
The trick: Shading. Simple packs (like most cartoons) rely on outlines and colors to define shapes. Whereas "complex" packs use shading to simulate depth on a 2D surface. The cobblestone on a simple pack might simply be some lines implying different blocks, but on a complex pack, the shapes are defined by shadows, lights and darks. I wish I had some examples to show you, but just compare packs like ShortStuf7's Clean Design Pack (arguably the best "simple" pack, because the author actually cares about color and consistency) to something like Painterly.
#in effort to show you i'm not pathetic :biggrin.gif:#
I have made a texture pack. It was quite good then patches started to overwhelm me and I lost all heart to work on it.
Here it is (please note the download is dead and so is the topic)
*clears cobwebs*
Here it is! http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/178210-16x16-llamapack-updated-33111-beta-14/